Question of tidelands ownership raised before Access Committee

THE PRESS · DEM
The Redwood Ernpire~s Leading Newspaper
SANTA ROSA, CALIFORNIA - The City Designed- for Living _
FRIDAY AFTERNOON, JANUAR ;.,.4, 1969
Que tion of Tidelands Ownership
Ra· sed Before Access Committee
By DO ENGDAHL pear at least a possibility that' nance. If the line of public owner-
. Sonoma County's special com· it extends even further inland. Even without it. under the ship turns out to be further in-mittee
on coastal . access met Deputy County <counsel James subdivision map a.ct, the super- land than previously thought.
again yesterday, appeared no Botz says / the first answer visors have ' the power to re- the implications include the ef­nearer
resolution of sharp intra- would have been given last year quire access dedication: be told feet on the Gualala River park'
fraternal differences and, sched- during the stormy controversy the committee that yesterday site 'offered Iby Sea Ranch as an
uled another . meeting for next before the Board of Supervisors and added: "whether they ex- alternative to G!ccess points;
Friday. ,over ' a use permit and zoning ercise it or not is another mat- through its development.
Yesterday's meeting was de- for the northern two-thirds of ter." The park, formally offered by
,oted to finding some narrow the lO.'S-mile Sea Ranch front- Oceanic Properties last Octo_ I
common ground in the con- age on the north county ,coast. Limit her, was said to include 25
troversy and preliminal'Y dis- But that exact question wasn't As for the exact limits of pub- acres of "sandy beach" at the '
cussions' of tJhe broad areas O!f asked by the county leaders: lie ownership along the county river's mouth, plus 101 acres or'
dispute in the years-old issue. The question posed was wheth- coast, Mr. Botz says under the headland. . :
Although the supervisor~p- er the access points could be terms of the Mexican land If the possibility that PUbliCi
pointed committee seems some required as a coildition of the grants that turned them to pri- ownership is to the high , wave
distance from issuing a recom- use permit. vate use it e:xtends to the "ex- materializes, ',conceivably a por­mendation
to the Board of Su- Under the conditions present 'ira-ordinary" high tide line. ' tion of the beach lands are 8J·1
pervisors, the staffwork - pri- -withotlt a showing of a public The deputy county counsel ready in public .ownership.· I
marily leg.al - has produced "burden" :by reason of the Oce- says he is not yet entirely sure
some new .definitions and pos- anic Properties development - what that means. But he says . Charles peaks Out
si:bilities: the access couldn't have been he's certain it, is at least the As some of Lhose points were.
I-1J)espite contentions 'by the required legally, Mr. Botz says. extreme high .tide line, and discussed ~Testerday committee '
Board of Supervisors and oth- F'urther, Mr. Botz says-de- says there's a possibility i,t may member' George Charles, Caza­ers
last yeaJ', the county does spite some dark aUegaUons to even mean a wave line. dem ~ appointed to represent
have the power to require coas- the ' contrary by some county of- Aside from that, there appears the coastal landowners - for­tal
land developers...t;o give rights ficials in the prelimina.ry dis- to be some question as to where m,ally wenl on record in tIlelr
of way or build streets to the putes over Proposition B on the the boundaries of the original behalf a saying they think '
coa. t as a 'ondition of subdivi- November ballot-he thinks the land grant were reaUy drawn there is a "very large ques­sion
approval. defeated coastal access mea- -the limit of high tide . or fur- tion" as to who owns the tide-
2-Public ownership of tide- sure would "clearly. have been ther inland. , lands. ,
lands extends not to the :rl1ean valid," and especially if it had He's researching the original Well, aid Chairman A, E. Gal·
high tide but to the "extraordi- been written as an amendment grants in an attempt Lo 'esta,b- Ii, Cloverdale, the committee has
nary" high tide and there ap- to the county subdivision ordi~ lish 'that point, he said. (Continued 011 Page 3, Col. 3) ~
Question of Tidelands · Ownership
Ru,ise£l <~ BeiQre ~4_ccess Committee
(Continued from Page 1) I
to .assume that the tidelands are I
in pUiblic ownership. Ooasta1 ·
landowners, said Mr. Charles,
"question that."
Aside from those issues, the
five-man committee did reach
agreemtnt on a fun<!amental
point: "Some form of · coastal
access should be provided."
And they agreed that it should
be done through a pre-determin­ed
policy ,and master plan.
But discussion of some propo­sitions
advanced by Californians
Organi1zed to Acquire Access to
State Tidelands (COAAST) pro­duced
only minimal unanimity.
points undeveloped until "some
level of government" can prop-erly
deve'lope them. \'~'::'
Landowner rep r es tative
Charles nailed his position down
with a prepar,ed sta;~emerit th?t
said corridors would be udis­criminatory"
in that they would
benefit only a limited segment
of coast users, and that instead
multi-purpose use parks i t es
should be considered and pur­chased
with state and federal
money.
Dr. William Kortum, head of
the group that unsuccessfully
And condemnation p ow er s
shouldn't be used he said; it
would be more logical to buy
them "as they become avail­able"
from willing sellers.
J Committeeman Dr. Kenneth
sought the county initiative or-! Stocking, Sonoma State College)
dinance in November, had laid professor (who next week is t~
down a 1'4-point position calling give a position statement to the
for access to the coast in "its group) ..said he thinks the coun­entirety."
ty should as policy buy all lands
The proposition drew support seaward of Highway 1 "when
from Joseph McClelland, sea they are available."
Ranch project director and an- Tidelands 'Locked'
other committee member, on Another OOAAST point was
only a few points-such 'as ex- that the "lack of ~ccess to pub­empting
agricultural lands un- lie tidelands creates a land­less
they are bought from "will-ing
sellers," master planning, locked parcel;" the tidelands.
Dr. Kortum said that's a
designation of Highway 1 as a
scenic state rou.te, using "un-' point that · surely someday will
obtrusive access routes" and be taken up by the public, and
placing parking 'and camping proposed that the committee an- '
uses easterly of Highway 1 ticipate that by ma~g . it part
" h 'bI " of the recommendatIOns and
w erever POSSI e. , 'd' t I k'
But other of the hard COAAST provi ~ng means 0 un oc mg
~~~~_ = _ . __ .. _~ the co st. .
propositions proved major haz- !But ,Mr. McClelland said the
ards to committee ' navigation. approach should be to buy the
Among them are the ideas of access 'routes. As he saw it,
making "traversible public tide- he said, the OOAAJST argument
lands" avai1a!ble' ~n their en- is "here is the highway, here
'tirety," making all roads s - is the puiblic land, and the hell
ward of Highway: 1 pUblic road with what's in the middle."
creating a "bluff side traU"' · No one, pe ,said; Is "worry-,
along the entire coast, 'and leav- ing about the property owner" I
,ing ' dedicated tideland access and said the icJe'a is that wl1~
property changes hands "a third II
hand reaches in and grabs . a
part of it." l
Dr . . Kortum 'insisted there is I
a 'i,constitutiona~ right" of 'ac-l
cess fo the tidelands and pur-\
chasers should be aware of it.
~her, he said, the proc~ss ofl
requiring dedication of public
rights of way-the "third hand""
-is "nothing new, its exercised
every day" during subdivision
approvals.
Dr. Stocking appeared to
agree that when subdivisions
are approved access should be
a part of the subdivisions.
And he noted that the "third
hand" of the puiblic also pro­vides
benefits to the subdivider~ '
Dr. Kortun said COAAST pro-'
poses the bluff-side :trail idea I
as a cQncept for the future. The
county could be a "real leader'"
in setting up plans for it, he
said, and added that Sea Ranch
includes such a system for pri­vate
,use. And it might be, he
said,"that much of the face
of the bluff already belongs to
the public." . matical yeiterd.ay.
Chairman Galli agreed that In the ~ackground lies the pos- .
it might be included as a con- sibility that the now battIe- needed SIgnatures equal to 10;
cept for future planning. hardened COAAST group might pe~ cent of the last guberna-
When he adjol:lrn-ed the meet- try another. initiative petition tonal ~ote (or 6,l~~) in orderl
ing of the "committee of 100 that would gIVe the voters anoth to qualIfy the petItIon for the
days" he said he hoped they'd er chance to . write a county general election. ;
be able at the next meeting to law. The organization finally quali-1
begin writing pieces of the re- Some members of COAA:ST fied 9,158 signatures, or 14 per!
port that is due March 10. have. said recent discussions cent. I
Whethe: the five men finally have hlcluded the possibility of 1£ they got 12,286 the super.'
resolve differences and come up making some modifications in visors would be forced to set a
with a single set of recommen- the law tried last fall, beefing special election on the initiative I
dati~ns or instead give the su- up the organization and then try- -and some COAAST members;
pervlsors a sort of multiple- ing to force a special election. have expressed confidence that'
choice report appeared proble.. The last time around COAAST they could easily do that. '
• .. - J

Click tabs to swap between content that is broken into logical sections.